Bibliometric Indices of Scientific Journals: Time to overcome the obsession and think beyond the Impact Factor

Abstract

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has been widely used for a long time as a proxy marker of journal prestige. However, off late, accuracy and reliability of JIF for evaluation of scientific journals has been increasingly questioned by numerous stakeholders in the field of scholarly publications. Having realized the perils and pitfalls of JIF, there is an increasing understanding among academia to develop and consider alternatives to the traditional JIF. It is possibly time for all concerned to understand the pros and cons of JIF to overcome this obsession. Limitations of JIF and possible alternative and emerging bibliometric indicators are being discussed in this article for the benefit of the readers of MJAFI.

Ewaluacja Dyscyplin Naukowych Jako Dyskretny Problem Plecakowy

“…W pracy (Morawski, 2017) opublikowanej w 2017 r. używany był jeszcze termin punktomania. Liczenie cytowań i sumowanie wartości różnych punktów i wskaźników stało się rytuałem w środowiskach akademickich dokładnie wtedy, gdy świat zaczął walczyć z obsesją bibliometryczną (Ranjan, 2017). Wyrazu punktoza nie odnotowują jeszcze słowniki, ale 26 lipca 2016 r. zarejestrowało go Obserwatorium Językowe Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego (Szczerbowski, 2017).…”

Changing paradigm in the scientific publication process: Are we encouraging Science or Pseudoscience? Urgent need for introspection and self regulation

“…16,17 Not surprisingly, the impact factor obsession is prevalent amongst most of the stakeholders including even regulatory bodies and funding agencies. A medical journal, or even an article, published in a professional journal should be judged by its readers after reading it rather than basing impressions primarily on the calculated impact factor.…”

“…An article by Ranjan in this issue of the Journal examines the various aspects of bibliometric indices. 17 We need to introspect on certain relevant issues such as:…”

Research Counts, Not the Journal

“…T he main argument against the use of JIF for characterization of individual papers and scientists is a lack of strong correlation between its value and the citedness of the individual papers published in the journal. T here is no guarantee that an article published in a high IF journal will attract profuse citations [6] . It is known [7] that only a fraction of the papers published in a high IF journal receive most citations contributing to the JIF, regularly known in scientometrics as the 'invitation's paradox' [8] .…”